Gitmo photos won't be released
NEW YORK — The government does not have to release photographs and dozens of videotapes of a Saudi citizen detained at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, in the investigation of the 9/11 attacks, a judge ruled Friday after concluding they don't depict illegal conduct, evidence of mistreatment or potential sources of governmental embarrassment.
Authorities have said Mohammed al-Qahtani narrowly missed being one of the 9/11 hijackers when he was denied entry into the United States at an Orlando airport a month before the 2001 attacks. Charges against him were dropped.
The Center for Constitutional Rights sued the Departments of Defense and Justice and the CIA last year in Manhattan, saying the release of videotapes and photographs of his interrogation would be in the public interest.
U.S. District Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald, who reviewed a government summary of the videotapes, said the images were properly classified secret because it was “both logical and plausible that extremists” would use them to incite anti-American sentiment, raise funds and recruit loyalists.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- House demands details of Taliban detainees swap for Bergdahl
- House panel OKs fast-track trade bill
- Magma chamber spied under Yellowstone volcano
- ‘Organic’ tag on water-raised produce raises ire
- Florida fraternity members spit on disabled veterans at retreat
- 15 buffalo that escaped from farm killed in upstate N.Y.
- Hostility at VA lingers, panel told
- Unhappiness over plan to unfreeze billions in oil revenue for Iran threatens nuclear bill in Senate
- Study a surprise: Commercial bees unfazed by pesticides
- Residents guide geese out of town
- Administration turns up heat on Medicaid expansion